Madras High Court
CRP/6716/2026 of KUMARASAMY GOUNDER Vs JAGANNATHAN on 27 October 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 27-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH
Civil Revision Petition No.6716 of 2026
and
C.M.P.No.28923 of 2026
CNR: {HCMA012419162026}
1. Kumarasamy Gounder
S/o.Late Illaiappa Gounder
2. Balasubramaniam
S/o.Kumarasamy Gounder
3. Panneerselvam
S/o.Kumarasamy Gounder
4. Paruvatham
W/o.Dhanapal
..Petitioners
Vs
1. Jaganaathan
S/o.Late Nalliyappa Gounder
2. Velusamy alias Velu
S/o.Late Nalliyappa Gounder
..Respondents
Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decreetal order dated 29.06.2026 made in I.A.No.7 of 2026
in O.S.No.59 of 2023 on the file of District Munsif Court, Tiruchengode.
For Petitioners :
Mr.T.L.Thirumalaisamy
*****
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
Decisions referred to
In this index
1
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
This civil revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 29.06.2026 passed in I.A.No.7 of 2026 in O.S.No.59 of 2023 on the file of District Munsif Court, Tiruchengode, wherein the application filed by the petitioners/defendants under Order VIII Rule 9 CPC to file additional written statement along with counter claim, came to be rejected by the Court below.
2. Heard learned counsel for petitioners and carefully perused the materials available on record. This Court also went through the impugned order.
3. The respondents are the plaintiffs, who filed the suit in O.S.No.59 of 2023 seeking for the relief for permanent injunction and for mandatory injunction. The petitioners/defendants originally filed a written statement on 30.01.2024. Based on the pleadings, issues were framed and the suit was at the stage of trial. At that stage, based on a cause of action that arose after filing of the original written statement, I.A.No.7 of 2026 in O.S.No.59 of 2023 was filed to file additional written statement along with counterclaim. The same came to be rejected by the Court below and aggrieved by the same, the present revision has been filed before this Court.
4. In the considered view of this Court, the outer limit for filing a counterclaim is up to the framing of issues and thereafter, the counterclaim cannot be entertained. Useful reference can be made to the Three Member Bench of the Apex Court in Ashok Kumar Kalra v. Wing CDR. Surendra Agnihotri and others [(2020) 2 SCC 394].
5. Apart from the above, the counter claim has been filed by the petitioners based on a cause of action that arose after filing of the written statement. Such a counterclaim is not maintainable, as a counterclaim can only be based on a cause of action that arose either before or after the filing of the suit, but prior to the defendant delivering his defence. Useful reference can be made to the judgment of this Court in Valli & another v. Kandasamy [(2018) 6 CTC 273].
6. In view of the above settled position of law, the order passed by the Court below does not require the interference of this Court. If at all, a fresh cause of action has arisen for the petitioners/defendants to make a claim against the respondents/plaintiffs, it is always left open to them to file an independent suit and work out their remedy in accordance with law. Accordingly, the impugned order is sustained.
N.ANAND VENKATESH, J. gm In the result, this civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 27-10-2026 Index: Yes Speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes gm To The District Munsif Court, Tiruchengode. Civil Revision Petition No.6716 of 2026